Effect of Body Mass Index on Treatment of Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections in Hospitalized Adults: Comparison of Ertapenem with Piperacillin-Tazobactam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) are a common problem in surgical practice. The effect of body mass index (BMI) on the outcome is poorly understood. We compared the association of BMI and type of antibiotic therapy for cIAI described in a previously published trial of ertapenem vs. piperacillin-tazobactam (Namias N, Solomkin JS, Jensen EH, et al. Randomized, multicenter, double-blind study of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intravenous ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized adults. Surg Infect 2007;8:15-28). METHODS: A post-hoc analysis was performed using data obtained from the published study. The effect of BMI and type of antibiotic used for therapy were calculated for clinically favorable outcomes at early follow-up assessment (EFA). RESULTS: The 231 patients who were microbiologically evaluable at EFA were stratified by BMI (<30 or ≥30 kg/m(2)). Twelve patients were excluded because of missing BMI data, leaving 219 patients for analysis. There were some differences in baseline characteristics between patients with a BMI <30 kg/m(2), including the source of intra-abdominal infection (more appendicitis in BMI <30 group; p=0.01) and gender (more men in the BMI <30 group; p=0.03). There was no difference in cure rates between the groups (82.9% for BMI <30 kg/m(2) vs. 74.5% for those with BMI ≥30 kg/m(2); 8% difference in proportions, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5%, 25%). There was an 80% favorable clinical response to ertapenem in the BMI <30 group compared with an 81% favorable rate in the BMI ≥30 group (-1% difference in proportions; 95% CI -22%, 19%). This compared with an 86% favorable response rate to piperacillin-tazobactam in the BMI <30 group vs. a 65% favorable clinical response rate in the BMI ≥30 group (21% difference in proportions; 95% CI -1%, 47%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the cure rate of patients with cIAI in the BMI <30 and BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of response to an antibiotic regimen. However, there was a nominally 21% lower cure rate in the high BMI group receiving piperacillin-tazobactam (86% vs. 65%; 21% difference in proportions; 95% CI -1%, 47%), whereas there was only a 1% difference in the cure rate between BMI groups in the patients receiving ertapenem. This difference may be related to gender and etiology of infection. Although limited by the small number of high BMI patients and post-hoc methodology, these results merit consideration of the design of future prospective antibiotic trials to include stratification for BMI and consideration of the effect of BMI on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".